Pages

Thursday, May 24, 2012

The Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan

The
Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan is a comprehensive political, social,
economic, and military account of the great war between Sparta and Athens. For
those interested in these types of histories, as well as the history and
culture of ancient Greece, this book will be an engrossing experience. Kagan a Sterling
Professor of Classics and History at Yale University has also published a
massive four - volume history of the conflict aimed at serious scholars. This
is his one volume “condensed” version that is in itself extremely detailed.

The
Peloponnesian War was actually a series of conflicts. Athens was a direct
democracy; that is, all free males who were citizens voted on almost every
public decision. Athens was the center of a powerful, wealthy, but often oppressive
maritime empire.

While
Sparta is often described as a military dictatorship, Kagan points out it was
really a mixed system that was part monarchy, part aristocracy, and part democracy.
Sparta was famous for its highly militaristic system that imposed harsh martial
training on all male citizens.

For
nearly thirty years the two states waged an on again and off again war upon
each other and as well as on allied states. The struggle encompassed an area
that stretched from the coast of modern day Turkey and the Black Sea in the
east, to Sicily in the west. The wars involved dozens of city-states as well as
the Persian Empire. It was characterized by both land and sea battles. The
conflicts finally ended with the surrender of Athens in 404 BC.

The
ancient Greeks played an integral part in the shaping of the modern world. This
conflict played an immensely important part in shaping the world of Ancient
Greece. I think that Kalgan gets it about right when he compares the impact of
this clash on Ancient Greece to the impact that the First World War had upon twentieth
century Western Civilization. Therefore, the Peloponnesian War is well worth
studying for those who wish to obtain a clearer understanding of the world.

There
is so much one can talk about here. I want to focus on only one of a multitude
of facets to this conflict, what is known as the “Sicilian Expedition”. This
campaign and its consequences can teach us some important lessons relevant to
our modern world. In 422 BC Athens and Sparta had actually been at peace, but
in a state of “cold war” for about seven years. In that year the Athenians decided
to launch a major invasion of the island of Sicily. The expedition involved an
enormous number of ships and soldiers and was exceedingly expensive. Athens
expected an easy victory. After two years of fighting against various Sicilian city-states
led by Syracuse, as well as a Spartan expeditionary force, the Athenian army
was surrounded and annihilated. Her enormous fleet was bottled up in a harbor
and sunk. Most of the Athenian military leadership was killed in the campaign
and the democracy was nearly bankrupted.

The Sicilian
calamity was the beginning of the end for Athens. Much of its empire subsequently
rebelled, Sparta attacked on land and sea, and civil strife gripped the city
resulting in the temporarily overthrow of the democracy. While the war
continued for another ten years, Kalgan convincingly argues that had these
losses in Sicily not occurred, the total defeat of Athens would likely never
have happened. It seems to me that the war between the Sparta and Athens may
never even have reignited, and if it had, it is likely that Athens would have
defeated Sparta.

Why
did Athens launch such as ill-conceived mission? First, the conquest of Sicily
would have provided the Athenians with a strategic advantage over Sparta,
cutting off much of the Sparta’s foreign trade. Second, the addition of Sicily
to the Athenian empire would have bestowed increased power and wealth upon
Athens. Finally, Kagan’s description of the Athenians’ deliberations leading up
to the expedition indicates a certain level of arrogance and overconfidence as
to the prospects for success. At the time Athens was brimming with wealth derived
from its empire. The city-state was mistress of the seas, and in possession of
an enormous navy that had previously won battle after battle against its
enemies. To many Athenians, the easy conquest of Sicily was a given.

Before
we draw parallels with other historical events it is important to point out
that while comparative history can be useful and enlightening such judgments
have their limits. Kagan compares the Athenian calamity in Sicily to the Franco
– British Gallipoli Campaign as well as to America’s involvement in Vietnam.
While I believe there are parallels with those actions, in terms of the scope
of military defeat and the ensuing destruction of empire, the Sicilian Campaign
was closer to Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet
Union. Again, the similarities only go so far, as those cases did not involve democracies
launching invasions over the maritime distances.

Most
recently, America’s invasion of Iraq comes to mind. That poorly conceived
venture was also planned with both strategic and economic advantage as goals.
As an American I can personally attest to the overconfident and arrogant attitudes,
as well as the uncritical beliefs in America’s power, expressed by many of my
fellow citizens leading up to the war. Of course, like the Athenian experience
in Sicily, the military campaign did not go nearly as successfully as planned,
and ultimately weakened the United States both strategically and economically.

All foreign
military involvements cannot be considered as mistakes however. For instance,
America’s intervention in World War II can be characterized as a foreign
intervention (America had a foot as well as leg in the game well before Pearl
Harbor). Yet, that historical intervention can be seen as moral, necessary and successful.

Nevertheless,
modern states would do well to consider both the morality and unforeseen
outcomes that result from these ventures. History abounds with other examples
of democracies intervening militarily, over vast oceans, which were both
justified and beneficial. The trick is to figure out which ones are worth the
risk and the cost as well as meeting a moral litmus test. If careful and
thoughtful deliberations with less arrogance had occurred prior to some of the
events outlined above, many terrible and unfortunate events likely would not
have occurred.

On a
side note, I cannot neglect to mention that strangely enough, Kagan was one of
the leaders Project for the New American
Century. Project for the New American
Century was the conservative think tank that provided the intellectual force
and the theories behind the America’s invasion of Iraq and the Bush
administrations aggressive military policies. Thus, I suspect that Kagan would
cringe at parts of my commentary. His politics not withstanding, the author has
written a fine work of history in The
Peloponnesian War.

6 comments:

I didn't know about the driect democracy. i always thought Switzerkand was unusual for having it, Ididn't know it had existed before. I have problems wit comparing wars or campaigns or such. Or labelling them even ("great war" "good war"). Only recently I even came to question the term "Vietnam war". I was reading one of my readalong books last year, The Lotus Eaters and the Vietnamese characters called it "the American war". That was like slap in the face. We Westerners are so arrogant with our labels, aren't we..Besides all this, I for one will always be grateful to the US for having helped in WWII. Thanks for another thought provoking post.

I suppose I use the term "Great" in terms of "large" and momentous. I understand in some ways that it can be constructed as an oxymoron. In terms of all comparative history, whether taking about wars or not, it is something that can be very useful, however, as I mention it has its limits.

Now you have made me curious about direct democracy in Switzerland. I do not know much about it!

Indeed, we are very arrogant with our labels. That makes me think about the way that we say that Columbus "discovered" America.

In Switzerland the people have a say in everything. We vote about everything and if you want a change all yo need to do is collect 100000 signatures and they have to arrange a vote. It's not a bad system at all but it's a little country.

You are absolutely right, especially the part about repeating out mistakes. The thing is in a our times where there are still thousands of nuclear weapons around, the next big mistake or really big war will likely be our last.

I think that most people are not it really kind and good. My theory is as follow: Maybe 15% are really decent. Another 15% are outright evil. The remaining 60% will go along with whatever is popular. They will follow a Hitler or a Gandhi, whatever everyone else is doing.

Sometimes it is an irrational reaction based upon real circumstances. I remember here in America after September 11, the majority of my fellow Americans would have supported an American Military attack on ANYONE. It was utter mindless mis - reaction to events. Never mind that Iraq obviously had nothing to do with The attacks. If Bush had pushed for it, many would have supported an American invasion of Canada.